Hi, John:
0) Thanks for your comments.
1) Re: Ur. Pt. 1): I have recently been informed of such activities.
So far, my attempt to submit a draft and to reach the group chairs have
not been successful.
2) Re: Ur. Pt. 2): Our work looks very much inline with your Unicast
project. My quick reaction is that EzIP appears to be a practical
application that can benefit from your proposal. Although we further
limit the application of 240/4 netblock to be "on-premises" (from the
Internet core's perspective) use, the scheme of the EzIP deployment
actually makes the scope bigger. Since I am not very familiar with the
terminologies, does this interpretation make any sense? Please comment.
Regards,
Abe (2022-03-14 00:22)
On 2022-03-12 23:26, John Gilmore wrote:
Abraham Y. Chen<ayc...@avinta.com> wrote:
1) Thanks for confirming my understanding of the 240/4 history.
Basically, those in charge of the Internet appear to be leaving the
community in the state of informal debates, since there is no more
formal IPv4 working group.
There is one; it's called "intarea" and is a working group of the IETF.
2) On the other hand, there was a recent APNIC blog that specifically
reminded us of a fairly formal request for re-designating the 240/4
netblock back in 2008 (second grey background box). To me, this means
whether to change the 240/4 status is not an issue. The question is
whether we can identify an application that can maximize its impact.
https://blog.apnic.net/2022/01/19/ip-addressing-in-2021/
Please read our recent Internet-Draft on the subject:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-240/
In section 2, you will find references to all the previous allocations
(and requests for allocation) of the 240/4 address block.
John
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
